Haraldsdottir says Amazon wants to “set up drivers for success and provide them support for being safer on road and handling incidents if and when they happen.” But The Information talked with some drivers who are concerned the use of Netradyne’s technology might constitute unfair and invasive surveillance and place even further burdens on them as they try to meet tight deadlines.

Is this too “Big Brother-y” or is this type of surveillance warranted? On one hand, it makes sense as a way to hold drivers accountable and keep them within safety standards. But on the other hand, I don’t love the idea of always been recorded, even if I’m not doing anything wrong. From the article: “The marketing video showcases how the cameras record “100% of the time” (though without audio and not viewable live) and upload footage to a dedicated safety team for review if any one of 16 signals is triggered through an incident happening on the road or an action the driver takes. The driver is able to manually disable the camera, but only when the ignition is off.”

The hardware and software will be supplied by Netradyne, a California company behind a platform called Driveri that uses cameras and artificial intelligence to analyze a driver as they operate the vehicle.

I suggest in this paper (577-578) that digital monitoring should be evidence of employment status, though I don't develop the argument in detail. Under the common law test for employment, this is powerful evidence of control & enterprise integration.